zlacker

Shortwave | Sr. Software Engineer | Onsite in San Francisco | $150k-$225k base + generous equity

I previously cofounded Firebase (YC S11) and sold it to Google, and most of our team is ex-Google / ex-Firebase.

Shortwave (https://www.shortwave.com/) is building an AI-powered email client. We're bringing the power of LLMs & a modern messaging UX to 4.5 billion email users.

Imagine an AI virtual assistant with perfect knowledge of every message, attachment, receipt, newsletter, etc you've ever sent or received, and with the ability to act on your behalf ("Draft email responses to the job candidates in my inbox asking them to schedule a time with me" "delete all recruiter spam" "snooze emails that don't seem urgent").

We're well-funded and backed by Union Square Ventures and Lightspeed Venture Partners. We want the best and are willing to pay for it. We like generalists with strong CS fundamentals, app development experience, and grit.

Come help us build the future. Email if interested: joinourteam@shortwave.com

>>mayop1+(OP)
Isn't the worry here that Google is going to head in this same direction? (hasn't there been some indication that they are moving in this direction?)

>>mayop1+(OP)
Not interested in applying(have a job) - but great name for a company/app!

Good job getting that domain - short, memorable and topical all in one.

>>ejb999+6d
Thank you!

>>UncleO+xc
They can try to keep up :)

We have two major advantages: 1. We can use best-in-class AI tech, from any vendor (ie. OpenAI) -- whereas Google is only going to use their internal tech 2. We can take lots of UX risk when designing the perfect UI for an AI email client. Gmail has to be much more cautious given it's such a core, old, massive product.

>>mayop1+qf
>whereas Google is only going to use their internal tech

Really? I have a hard time seeing why this must be the case.

>>omgint+ph
I have a hard time seeing why this wouldn't be the case.

>>omgint+ph
You don't farm out your core business. Google didn't use a rebranded Yahoo search engine in 1998, did they? They need to be a leader in AI or they will die quickly.

>>UncleO+xc
Google already made that and turned it off, so I think it's safe.

RIP Inbox

>>omgint+ph
Nah, I'm sure Google would eat their own dogfood. Right now their dogfood (Bard) doesn't seem very good compared to OpanAI, but I have to wonder if we're actually seeing what they really have. I suspect they're holding back the good stuff. They seem to have purposefully hamstrung what they've shown so far.

>>mayop1+(OP)
any chance for remote in the future?

>>grownu+uo
+1 on this.

Seems like a good product, if they are open to remote and would hire from Canada, I would be very happy to apply

>>mayop1+qf
If you are using the OpenAI APIs then are all your user’s emails making it onto their servers?

>>grownu+uo
It used to be

>>null_s+ot
Based on Andrew's response, yes it looks like they'll be using external AI services. But since their target customer is most likely someone who uses GMail, I don't think privacy is really a heavy focus for this product.

>>mayop1+qf
> They can try to keep up :)

I like this attitude. I'd also need to see something truly compelling and exciting in the Google sphere to bother with their products and features at all anymore. The graveyard is too huge not to hesitate.

>>mayop1+qf
You have a 3rd advantage.

3. You are not Google.

>>grownu+uo
A bit off topic but I do find it funny how it seemed for a moment you would have to take a cut for going remote but now it seems companies actually pay a premium for on-site.